Information Pages

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Has Sun City Anthem Communication Gone Too Far ?

Has Sun City Anthem Communication Crossed a Line with Censorship ?



In John 8:32 of the King James version of the bible, the following words ring loud in what Americans believe is the right of free speech:

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free".

Powerful words...meaningful words...words that we, as both Americans and residents of our community, are entitled to, whatever the consequence.

Something took place on the "official" Sun City Anthem website on Monday, August 12, 2013; that in my opinion, may have crossed a line in free speech; something one particular individual wrote, another responded to, and a third took it upon himself/herself, to remove commentary for a reason claiming to have a legal ramification.

Let's preface this by saying the dialogue referred to "Vic's Restaurant", our eatery that has gone through transition after transition, in the short few months of its existence.

Is "Vic's" what we thought it would be?

Has it been a moderately priced restaurant that would cater to the needs of our community

Has it provided a catering service that organizations both inside our community and outside it, have praised?

For those who believe it has kept its promises, perhaps those individuals might explain the low turn out in the restaurant and continuing club functions either utilizing "pot luck" or outside Anthem Center facilities for their venues.

Let's get something straight...no one wishes ANY business to fail...especially one that is HEAVILY FINANCED by residents.

And if it fails...who is to blame?

Is it the residents?

Is it the restaurant?

Is it THOSE WHO allowed it...and spent community funds in financing it, and drafting lease language that omitted protection of Sun City Anthem's financial well-being?

Regardless of what you believe, every Sun City Anthem resident is entitled to an opinion....EVERYONE...for one reason...

...THEY FINANCED A SUBSTANTIAL ASPECT OF IT and as "stockholders" they are ENTITLED TO A RETURN ON THAT INVESTMENT.

That return can be a tangible financial one through the revenue sharing aspect of the actual lease depending on the profitability of the business, and/or an intangible one through a service they provide COMMUNITY RESIDENTS in creating an atmosphere which provides excellent food and service...at a price WHICH THE MARKET BEARS.

To date, neither appears to be taking place, no matter what may be written to the contrary.

This gets me to the point of this article....FREE SPEECH.

The following comment was placed on the Sun City Anthem website by George Meese, husband of Board Member, Bella Meese.

"Unfortunately we have some blogs or forums that do nothing but denigrate anything and everything about Sun City Anthem.  From day one when the news came out that we had a restaurant those  groups started bad mouthing the restaurant (even before it was open) and have continued to do so regardless of what the restaurant has done to improve their offerings for our residents.  In my experience it takes a few months for a new restaurant to adjust to what their new customers want.  This is true of most restaurants and VIC'S is no exception.  At this point VIC'S food is excellent and so is the service.  Pay no attention to those that preach nothing but negativity about our community."

Mr. Meese has every right in the world to make such a comment, and we would certainly NEVER deny him that right.  I have known George Meese to be an honorable man, a dedicated man to Sun City Anthem, and if he chooses to believe what he has written despite what so many others have said...and experienced...he should be allowed to do so.

Is being the husband of a board member who fully supported the financing of Vic's at all times, a bit biased?  

That is for you to decide.

But...following that comment, another was made by another resident  has offered cost effective advice in various community bidding projects.

Written by that resident: 

"George, I am very surprised with your comments condemning other blogs expressing their views in disagreement with the establishment.  I just happen to be one of those “bad mouthing” the poor decisions made by a few that tend to dictate everyone’s way of living in SCA while wasting our dues because of lack of knowledge, not listening to good advice, or never look back so as not to make the same mistakes again and again.
Had the simple rules been followed with operating a business like SCA rather than the way we do, we wouldn't be discussing Vic’s apparently failing attempt to operate a restaurant in SCA that is supported by only a few.

The blame can't be placed on the few bad mouthing individuals; only those that made the bad decision for the fifth time to create another failing restaurant.

Those other “bad mouthing blogs” have a readership of a few hundred, what about the balance of the 13,000 residents living in SCA?  It is obvious they have come to the same conclusion without “ blog knowledge” that a restaurant is not what they want to support.

How many times does it take a reasonable person to figure out that a restaurant will never survive in SCA, if Vic’s fails?  So far five times…hopefully not six."


And so, I ask all of you....

...if this is his opinion, has he the same right to post it on the SCA official website

We see this as merely a resident stating what he believed, and whose opinion has every bit the same merit as Mr. Meese's initial comment.
NOT SO...ACCORDING to some individual who "polices" the SCA website.

That resident subsequently received this email...AFTER HIS COMMENTS WERE REMOVED from the SCA website.
"I have had to delete your recent posting on the SCA message board.
Your comment contains the allegation that Vic's is a failing restaurant when there is no evidence that this is the case. Though it is a fact that Vic's has cut back on hours during certain days this cannot be interpreted as evidence of failure but merely the actions of a new operator to adjust its schedules to meet the needs of its customers and manage its own bottom line.

Are you privy to the restaurant's finances?

Alleging that the restaurant is failing is potentially defamatory and could be interpreted as interference with a business relationship.
If you wish to post a comment expressing disagreement with the opinions posted by another resident you are welcome to do so minus the unproven allegation that the restaurant is failing."
There was NO NAME attached to the email, and comment of "potentially being defamatory and could be interpreted as interference with a business relationship" is in our opinion, PRACTICING LAW.

The resident subsequently sent this email back to the party who made the determination to remove his comment.

"I suppose it is approved for a board member's spouse to write defamatory information about other blogs bad mouthing "everything in  SCA." You know as well as I that is a false statement without any substantiating facts.  I take that as an personal attack on my/others character and demand George Meese's post be eliminated as defamatory, misleading, and false. 
Alleging that the restaurant is failing is potentially defamatory and could be interpreted as interference with a business relationship.

Don't blow smoke...I am entitled to my opinion based on observations and documentation.  I did that in a non-threatening, non-defamatory, non-interfering manner.  Your petty threats have no merit and any normal person would be aware of that fact.

By-the-way...to whom am I speaking?

Anxiously awaiting your response."

That resident  HAS YET TO RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL who made the determination to remove his comments.
And so...we ask of you?

Is this unfounded CENSORSHIP

Has Sun City Anthem communications gone too far?

And...should the person who removed his comment, and perhaps PRACTICED LAW, be IDENTIFIED and immediately REMOVED from Sun City Anthem official communication?

Dick Arendt

4 comments:

  1. I received an email from an individual who was at Anthem Center on Wednesday evening at approximately 7:00pm.

    That individual decided to go into Vic's Restaurant for a "look-see".

    There were only 3 tables being served dinner (2 at each table) and 1 person sitting at the bar.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It amazes me that you are just now questioning whether or not the SCA is censoring comment on the official SCA website.

    Once again I hate to say “I told you so” BUT “------------------”.

    When David Berman sued me for defamation he used as evidence a “doctored” quote that was supposedly written by me. After I got over the shock of being served I researched my files and found out that my comment WAS CHANGED BY SOMEONE WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE SCA WEBSITE (His wife Roz had free access to all comment on the SCA website at the time).

    Immediately after I turned over my files to my lawyer, THE ENTIRE SCA WEBSITE AND ALL THE FILES WERE TAKEN DOWN. You might also remember how long it took the Board to re-establish the website.

    You might also recall that David Berman was “awarded” only $1,000 and not the $30,000 that he asked for his “damaged” reputation after my lawyer received a printout of my original comment.

    The SCA Board of Directors will NEVER allow legitimate criticism of ANY aspect of their “Business Judgment” PERIOD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norm,

      That man's latest was at best, a sad tale of a person who will justify anything that would inhibit rhetoric contrary to the "official line" of communication.

      I am quite sure that his comment on the SCA website didn't really shock many people; but it did, in my opinion, confirm that within that man there is a belief that free speech should be removed when it is convenient to do so.

      I don't think even his strongest advocates would have believed he would have made this statement, and I couldn't help but notice he didn't have this statement on his own blog:

      "the right to constitutional free speech does not apply to private organizations such as our HOA".

      His criticism of Forrest's comments are well within his right to do so, but to label them in this manner in order to justify removal by stating...

      "Based on the article, I can certainly see why, as it appears he made a flat statement that Vic's is "a failing restaurant." But he didn't give any evidence of this, and when I reviewed the message board Terms of Service, which I think posters to the message board should do from time to time, it was clear to me that this was a violation"...

      ...IS HIS OPINION.

      "Clear this was a violation"...is MERELY "clear"...IN HIS MIND...

      ...not to others who share a belief that free speech should apply EVERYWHERE.

      This not a LEGAL OPINION....BECAUSE...He is NOT an attorney.

      The state of Massachusetts stripped him of the right to practice law many years ago, and he has never applied to the Nevada Bar Association to practice in this state to our knowledge.

      In addition the person who responded to Forrest by saying:

      "Alleging that the restaurant is failing is potentially defamatory and could be interpreted as interference with a business relationship"....

      ...has NEVER come forward to state WHO THEY ARE, or IF THEY ARE AN ATTORNEY, AND...

      ...as a result, that too is MERELY A "CONVENIENT" opinion AS WELL...to justify removing a comment that is contrary to "officialdom".

      It should also be pointed out that Forrest's statement read "apparently failing attempt"...NOT "FAILING".

      "Apparently" six people dining there Wednesday evening at 6:45pm with one person at the bar....must be SUCCESSFUL to those who can't handle the truth.

      When all things are considered...along with the almost daily hype of trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear", it's just typical "song and dance" from a person who, in my opinion, has been OWNED "lock stock & barrel" as a mouthpiece by those who keep digging their own graves trying to "keep face" for the mistakes they have made.

      Nothing new, Norm....as I said, we're stuck with him; he'll never change. It's now just a matter of how much damage that can be created; and as I previously said, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

      Besides, I also got one other chuckle. Of his supposed 3200 readers who he is of the belief, "values" his contributions, apparently they must not value them as much as they once did...

      ...as his counter indicates in the past 4 days, an average of only 138 p/day have clocked into his site, to see the "value" of any commentary that is displayed.

      Allow him to "rest in peace" as so many others have done lately, while those who have formerly been so heavily criticized in his writings, are now proving to many others, THROUGH ACTIONS AND DEEDS, that THEY ARE THE TRUE FRIENDS of Sun City Anthem.

      Delete
  3. Let’s run some numbers on Vic’s restaurant for a 30-day period.

    In order for SCA to receive some form of profit sharing, Vic’s income has to exceed $100,000 per month.

    I thought about that and decided to put that to examining the numbers to see how what it would take before SCA could get a piece of the pie.

    First of all we have to make some assumptions (that are fact).

    $100,000 divided by the days in the month (less closed on Mondays and no lunches on Saturday and Sunday).

    $100,000 divided by 26 days = $3846 per day income.

    Now, if we go get a bit realistic about things, let's also assume the average person spends about $25.00 (lunches & dinners combined).

    $3846 divided by $25 = 153 guests per day

    Last Wednesday at 7 PM a poster on another blog observed only 6 guests in the restaurant and one at the bar.

    Thursday night at 7:15 PM I observed only 6 tables being served in the restaurant and no one at the bar.

    Last night…Friday night no less, with over 300 people attending the music on the north lawn, while Vic’s was serving $4 or $5 hamburgers, $3 hot dogs and drinks for a few bucks on the lawn…Vic’s restaurant was serving dinner to only 25 guests at 7:30 PM.

    At that rate, it is my opinion, I cannot see how the restaurant can survive on it’s own.

    Some other tidbits to determine that amount of our "piece of the pie":

    The Filipiniana Club event in July with over 300 guests was reportedly a disaster. Vic’s apologized and was given one more opportunity to cater their next event properly or else.

    ICCC has scheduled two more events this year expecting about 300 guests per event. They have decided to have a potluck dinner over catering with Vic’s due Vic’s cost and history.

    Woodchips’ 125 guests Christmas Party will be held at Buckmans.

    The two ICCC and Woodchips’ events represent a potential loss of income totaling about $24,000 to Vic’s.

    Other clubs are going elsewhere for their events.

    The Filipinianna Dance Company of Las Vegas is hosting a dinner dance October 5th at the Gold Coast Hotel and Casino. The members of this group have been in attendance during several Filipinianna Club events in SCA, but decided to use another location at $55 per person. Our own SCA Filipinianna Club, of which I am a member, expects a large turnout at the event.

    So, my previous comment that Vic’s is apparently failing is substantiated by…

    The lack of supporters using the restaurants...

    ...failing to meet the needs of our community forcing clubs to seek alternatives,

    ...And has failed ...by not living up to the original lease agreement by reducing hours of operation including numerous menu and price changes.

    Looks like there won't be many apples to make the pie, much less, get a piece.

    ReplyDelete